Quote (Sgull @ Sun - Jul 29 2012 - 07:51:32)
i basically just want to know if it really is as it seems and would be appropriate to compare it to a mayor blocking target from opening stores because they love fags
No. Target's anti-gay actions were donations to political candidates. Chick-fil-a has done the same for years.
Chick-fil-a's corporate mission statement is:
"To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."
Their owner recently said this on a talk show:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
The company is one of the few that outwardly preaches from their corporate level. When you are preaching something that either strongly hints or outright says "fuck you, states that don't hold back civil rights like my religion says!" then you are going to get some people pissed off at you. When you quickly go from this to corporate-damage-control-mode, people aren't going to immediately flock to support your new, temporary public face.
The mayor's letter in Boston was very well crafted, since he can fall back on a legal basis of discrimination. He affirms the city's pride in supporting same-sex marriage, representing the public attitude fairly well, with the last paragraph being "controversial" with a legal basis behind it. The purpose of this letter was to draw public attention, which it has done very well.